A couple things here:
1. The wonderful thing about universes based in science fiction is that there are no rules. People who complained about the 2009 movie being about Kirk and Spock and not "moving forward and further into the future of Trek" (which is a gross misunderstanding of Star Trek, IMO) now want the "old Star Trek" back. Which ties into my second point:
2. Star Trek had more than its share of the character-heavy, dialogue ridden stories with the crew sitting in a room to talk. It stopped being successful. And if you have any company with major money being spent, it wants a return. No return, no more product like it. Star Trek had to change, like it or lump it. And those who refuse to accept change are also ignoring another fundamental point of Star Trek, again, IMO.
1. I have no problem with Trek going into its own past. I liked Enterprise from the get-go. (They truly couldn't have skipped even further ahead. The problem with going beyond the 24th century is - what advances can you make that aren't ludicrous, like Warp 15 or what have you.)
2. Change can be good. DS9 was radically different, and yet it is my favourite series. However, if all you do to Trek is make it dumber and louder so it appeals to blockbuster audiences, you're not really changing it. You're equalising, aiming at the lowest common denominator. It might be massively successful, but to all those flocking into theatres it's really just the flavour of the week before Iron Man 3
or what have you comes along. I postulate that Trek can change, make money and be good storytelling at the same time. (Which it isn't in its current state.)